On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 24, 2014 2:38 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> > But:  return 0 and return FAILURE... which is simpler?
>>
>> It's equally simple to write, but FAILURE of course is way simpler to
>> understand when read.
>
> I totally agree.
>
> I do not care much about the value of failure or success but I am tired to
> have to read the code to see if it is 0, 1, or -1 on failure.
>
> The kind of uniformization I would like to see for the php internals APIs.
>
> About the argument for the lack of info in function signature:
>
> A simple typedef will solve it, for the good:
>
> status php_foo();
>
> Or something along this line.
>
> Yes, it will mean yet another large set of changes for ext developers. But
> at this point, it may be a good time to do it.
hmm, okey

so, make the functions which use SUCCESS/FAILURE return php_success type?

and maybe also typedef php_success  php_status?

thanks

thanks
>
> Cheers,
> Pierre



-- 
Xinchen Hui
@Laruence
http://www.laruence.com/

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to